1. The erosion of the Canon of Scripture. The Nova Vulgata NT drops hundreds of words from the NT that are found in the Latin Scriptural tradition, and also found in the Greek Majority Text and Textus Receptus.

2. The abandonment of the Latin Scriptural tradition. The Latin basis for the NV NT is the Stuttgart text of the German Bible Society, thoroughly edited to conform to the United Bible Societies Greek text. The Clementine Vulgate is completely ignored.

3. The abandonment of Catholic scholarship, and the adoption of Protestant scholarship in its place. The Stuttgart Latin and the UBS Greek are works produced by teams of mainly Protestant scholars — material heretics who give no consideration to Catholic teaching when translating and editing Scripture.

4. The abandonment of the Greek Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and all other scholarship on the Greek text of the NT, other than the UBS critical text. The UBS critical text tends to omit many words and phrases, and even whole verses, on the basis of largely unstated scholarly considerations and conclusions. The MT and TR texts witness to many Greek manuscripts that are ignored by the UBS text. The Nova Vulgata NT does not generally represent the latest Biblical scholarship, but rather ignores all scholarship other than that of the Stuttgart and UBS Protestant texts.

5. Some points in the NT text were altered by the NV editors, not based on any scholarship, but rather on political correctness. For example, the NV rephrases ‘sons of the groom’ (filii sponsi) to ‘guests of the wedding’ (convivae nuptiarum), contrary to the Greek and Latin texts (Mt 9:15). In another example, silence is changed to tranquil in 1 Tim 2:11-12.

6. There are hundreds of typographical errors in the online version of the Nova Vulgata in both Testaments.

7. Some editorial decisions seem to show either a lack of understanding of Latin, or a lack of concern for whether the text will read well, or even be grammatically correct, in Latin. In this example, the three lines are from the Clementine, Stuttgart, and NV texts:

The use of ‘eius’ in the Stuttgart is most probably a typographical error. But the editors of the NV seem not to have realized that it is a typographical error, and so they ‘corrected’ the singular genitive ‘eius’ to the plural ‘eorum,’ (the pronoun should be plural, but should not be genitive) despite using ‘eis’ not ‘eorum’ in v. 9:36. The use of ‘eorum’ instead of ‘eis’ is a very noticeable error in the Latin.